I don't claim to know for certain that the OP is right that the Gospels came after Paul wrote his letters, but what you're suggesting is that Paul preached the Gospels that hadn't been written yet. This is the point you need to address: that the Gospels existed in the same form as they were presented in MMLJ when Paul was preaching his schtick. This is your claim, and I find it hard to support in light of the OP's research about how the Gospels actually came after the works of Paul.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 12, 2024, 3:09 pm
Thread Rating:
The original Christianity is not what is in the Bible
|
Quote:The first books of the New Testament that were written were Paul's letters (Galatians, Thessalonians, etc.) and they were written mostly in the 50's and 60's. The evidence for that is thin to the point of transparency. Mainly what it consists of is the wishful thinking of later xtians. But Justin Martyr writing extensively in the mid 2d century never heard of any "Paul." Ponder that for a while.
The original "Paul is dead" rumour? In this case, more like "Paul was never alive".
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
RE: The original Christianity is not what is in the Bible
September 5, 2013 at 12:07 pm
(This post was last modified: September 5, 2013 at 12:08 pm by Drich.)
(September 5, 2013 at 11:26 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: I don't claim to know for certain that the OP is right that the Gospels came after Paul wrote his letters, but what you're suggesting is that Paul preached the Gospels that hadn't been written yet.No one really knows when or what order the books were written. What I am saying is that the Gospels are the personal accounts of Matthew and John both a Deciples/Apstoles of Christ, Mark a deciple of Peter, and Luke a deciple of Paul. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostle_Luke Paul did not write an gospel because he taught the gospel with the authority that only an apstole of Christ has. What Paul taught was what seeded his church and what ultimatly his deciples taught. In short, Luke's written account was Paul's gospel. Where else would a gentile doctor get the information he penned down in his Gospel account 20 years after the fact? Quote:This is the point you need to address: that the Gospels existed in the same form as they were presented in MMLJ when Paul was preaching his schtick. This is your claim, and I find it hard to support in light of the OP's research about how the Gospels actually came after the works of Paul. The reason these works ALL came after the fact is because people back then did not prize the written word as they do today. A man's verbal word was his bond. In a soceity where there is less than a 10% literacy rate, the written word becomes a shady way to communicate to most folk. It wasn't till everyone started to die off that it became nessary to write stuff down. RE: The original Christianity is not what is in the Bible
September 5, 2013 at 12:08 pm
(This post was last modified: September 5, 2013 at 12:14 pm by Captain Colostomy.)
(September 5, 2013 at 11:56 am)Stimbo Wrote: The original "Paul is dead" rumour? In this case, more like "Paul was never alive". If it was Ringo, we wouldn't be concerned, either way. (September 5, 2013 at 12:07 pm)Drich Wrote: The reason these works ALL came after the fact is because people back then did not prize the written word as they do today. A man's verbal word was his bond. In a soceity where there is less than a 10% literacy rate, the written word becomes a shady way to communicate to most folk. It wasn't till everyone started to die off that it became nessary to write stuff down. You, sir, are a dumbass. I said it out loud, too. I guess combined it becomes gospel. You trust no named dead guys...guys with biases and agendas, to faithfully recite stories, but that if they were written down...at that time...they were automatically shady? How aren't they shady now?
"Paul did not write an gospel because he taught the gospel with the authority that only an apstole of Christ has. What Paul taught was what seeded his church and what ultimatly his deciples taught. In short, Luke's written account was Paul's gospel. Where else would a gentile doctor get the information he penned down in his Gospel account 20 years after the fact?"
And yet Paul wasn't ever an Apostle - in fact he never even met Jesus. Everything Paul had of Jesus' life therefore came second hand anyway and that would explain why Luke contains so many additional stories above and beyond Matthew and Mark. Paul got bits from many sources and after so many years......the fish got bigger.
Oh, the stench!
Look, Drich and all you other Christians,
Pretend you're a car-salesman, and business is slow. One day some people come in wanting to buy a sports car. Excited, you take them out to your premium model, and show it to them. You know everything about this car, but for some reason, all you talk about it the body of the car, what color it is and how nice the tires are. The people want to know everything about the car, about the seats, about the engine, about what speed it gets, but all you push is the body, color and tires. The buyers leave in disappointment. Where is the logic in that? Why would you not talk about the best part of the car? The engine! It has 600 horsepower and and do 0-60 in 4 seconds! With info like that, you could have nailed the sale! But you just talked about the outside of the car, not the inside. And that's how I see the teachings of Paul. If he knew all about the meatiest parts of his new religion, why waste his time just talking about the fundamentals? Why not spread the stories of the birth and the miracles? Those were amazing, divinity-proving things to talk about it, but he just tried to sell Christianity by only scratching the surface? Theology, methodology or whatever you want to talk about is irrelevant. Paul was trying to get converts by just spreading a few ideas. When the Gospel-writers saw that this wasn't enough, they spiced it up, with miracles and false prophecies. They sold the car. Paul merely raised the buyers' interest, but he just wasn't making the sale. And that's how I see it.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”
- Buddha "Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it." - Dennis McKinsey
And people have been buying the imaginary car ever since, cruising around and going "hey, look at me in my fancy invisible car! Aren't you jealous! Don't worry, you can buy one too - in fact, you're already driving one, you just don't know it!" Anything to stave off any budding awareness that they've just been conned. After all, if you can fool others with the same con that suckered you, it might make you look less of a gullible prat.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)